3GB VRAM vs 4GB VRAM

[JakePC12]

So I was looking at the GTX 1060 but I was about to get it when it was 3GB vram and im not buying the 6gb vram just because it costs $400 here and the 3gb one costs $300 ($100 difference) But I hear that 3GB VRAM isn't good so I was wondering if I should get the RX 480 since its 4gb but its equal to a 970 and the 1060 is equal to a 980. TL;DR Sacrifice 1GB VRAM for huge increased performance or get the RX 480 4GB?

 

[renz496]

So I was looking at the GTX 1060 but I was about to get it when it was 3GB vram and im not buying the 6gb vram just because it costs $400 here and the 3gb one costs $300 ($100 difference) But I hear that 3GB VRAM isn't good so I was wondering if I should get the RX 480 since its 4gb but its equal to a 970 and the 1060 is equal to a 980. TL;DR Sacrifice 1GB VRAM for huge increased performance or get the RX 480 4GB?

The GTX 1060 hasn't been benchmarked yet but it will most certainly not be a huge performance increase from a RX 480. Just like last gen GTX 960, the memory bandwidth of the 1060 is limited as is the memory. It will be a good 1080p card but the RX 480 will beat it in 1440p and DX 12. That 1 GB of extra memory plus the higher memory bandwidth of the RX 480 will give it a boost in most games, especially as both cards get older.

and we know nvidia architecture usually use bandwidth more effectively than AMD architecture. in case of 960 the small memory interface did not really hamper the cards performance. the core is simply weak to begin with. if you look at TPU review of 960 you will see that 960 was consistently 5-6% behind GTX680 at every resolution including 4k. if the small memory interface and small bandwidth are the bottleneck then we should see the gap widen at higher resolution vs GTX680.

 

[thor220]

So I was looking at the GTX 1060 but I was about to get it when it was 3GB vram and im not buying the 6gb vram just because it costs $400 here and the 3gb one costs $300 ($100 difference) But I hear that 3GB VRAM isn't good so I was wondering if I should get the RX 480 since its 4gb but its equal to a 970 and the 1060 is equal to a 980. TL;DR Sacrifice 1GB VRAM for huge increased performance or get the RX 480 4GB?

The GTX 1060 hasn't been benchmarked yet but it will most certainly not be a huge performance increase from a RX 480. Just like last gen GTX 960, the memory bandwidth of the 1060 is limited as is the memory. It will be a good 1080p card but the RX 480 will beat it in 1440p and DX 12. That 1 GB of extra memory plus the higher memory bandwidth of the RX 480 will give it a boost in most games, especially as both cards get older.

and we know nvidia architecture usually use bandwidth more effectively than AMD architecture. in case of 960 the small memory interface did not really hamper the cards performance. the core is simply weak to begin with. if you look at TPU review of 960 you will see that 960 was consistently 5-6% behind GTX680 at every resolution including 4k. if the small memory interface and small bandwidth are the bottleneck then we should see the gap widen at higher resolution vs GTX680.

It's the memory compression, not efficient use of memory bandwidth. You can get some games that have allot of compressible textures and other's not so much. It can only carry you so far.

 

[renz496]

yes that is considered as "efficient" using of available resource. in this case it was bandwidth usage. having boat loads of bandwidth is useless if there is no gpu grunt to back it up. and the way i understand it the color compression will work the same regardless of game. there is no things such as this game is more "compressible" than the others.

 

[thor220]

yes that is considered as "efficient" using of available resource. in this case it was bandwidth usage. having boat loads of bandwidth is useless if there is no gpu grunt to back it up. and the way i understand it the color compression will work the same regardless of game. there is no things such as this game is more "compressible" than the others.

This isn't color compression, it's texture compression. GPUs don't store colors in the memory. Nvidia even showed their compression performing differently when they launched pascal, stating they were able to improve texture compression across certain games.

 

[renz496]

the tech nvidia use to reduce bandwidth usage is called as delta color compression. they compress the color not game texture. nothing new but nvidia keep improving in this aspect to reduce bandwidth usage. that's why 750Ti able to perform as fast as GTX480 despite 750Ti have much less bandwidth than GTX480. if not 750Ti will be choked by it's limited bandwidth in games.

 

[thor220]

Regardless of the compression, it was already present on the 960 and that card had issues with memory bandwidth.

http://techreport.com/review/27702/nvidia-geforce-gtx-960-graphics-card-reviewed/4

Just look at the FPS spikes. It's obvious the memory is bottlenecking that card. Even the GTX 970, with it's 3.5 GB issue had a much more controlled FPS.

 

[renz496]

the 2GB VRAM on 960 might affect things when the memory usage at the max or game simply want more VRAM but bandwidth wise it the should be no problem with 960.

 

[thor220]

the 2GB VRAM on 960 might affect things when the memory usage at the max or game simply want more VRAM but bandwidth wise it the should be no problem with 960.

No, the GTX 960's memory bandwidth does limit the card

https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/article-just-how-important-is-gpu-memory-bandwidth.209053/

I've provided two conclusive links on this topic. I've looked around Tom's and you've posted in multiple threads stating the memory bandwidth of the 960 doesn't affect the card when it was duly noted in multiple reviews and again proven by the links I have provided.

 

[JUICEhunter]

@ OP: 3gb 1060 should actually be the gtx 1050 with 128 less cuda cores to compete with 470/460 and should cost less than 1060, 3gb is fine for high settings 2x aa on new games (@ 1080p) as my 780ti with 3gb is still a very fast GPU that can handle these settings and stay under 3gb usage and even push high hz/fps.

Ultra settings (vs high or very high) and 4x AA are some of many things that eats up VRAM. The next 1060/1050 will have the right amount of ram for how fast the GPU's will be.

If my buddies 1070 chocks on some ultra settings so will any slower GPU ALWAYS tune your games for looks/performance. He has to turn down very little to never dip below 60fps, when everything is perfect most of the time a slight dip is noticeable, hence never dipping and always feeling smooth.

 

[renz496]

the 2GB VRAM on 960 might affect things when the memory usage at the max or game simply want more VRAM but bandwidth wise it the should be no problem with 960.

No, the GTX 960's memory bandwidth does limit the card

https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/article-just-how-important-is-gpu-memory-bandwidth.209053/

I've provided two conclusive links on this topic. I've looked around Tom's and you've posted in multiple threads stating the memory bandwidth of the 960 doesn't affect the card when it was duly noted in multiple reviews and again proven by the links I have provided.

so if the card was given more bandwidth will it give more FPS? even the test was only an estimation and they guy doing the test said you can't take the numbers as a pure fact. the bandwidth is a bit limiting but the GPU core also weak. adding more bandwidth to the card will not make 960 faster. look at TPU review of 960 itself. if the bandwidth severely limiting the card the gap should widen between 960 vs 680 as the resolution goes up because despite having almost similar performance 680 have much higher bandwidth vs 960 (112GB/s vs 192GB/s).

 

[thor220]

the 2GB VRAM on 960 might affect things when the memory usage at the max or game simply want more VRAM but bandwidth wise it the should be no problem with 960.

No, the GTX 960's memory bandwidth does limit the card

https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/article-just-how-important-is-gpu-memory-bandwidth.209053/

I've provided two conclusive links on this topic. I've looked around Tom's and you've posted in multiple threads stating the memory bandwidth of the 960 doesn't affect the card when it was duly noted in multiple reviews and again proven by the links I have provided.

so if the card was given more bandwidth will it give more FPS? even the test was only an estimation and they guy doing the test said you can't take the numbers as a pure fact. the bandwidth is a bit limiting but the GPU core also weak. adding more bandwidth to the card will not make 960 faster. look at TPU review of 960 itself. if the bandwidth severely limiting the card the gap should widen between 960 vs 680 as the resolution goes up because despite having almost similar performance 680 have much higher bandwidth vs 960 (112GB/s vs 192GB/s).

Like I said previously, this was never about "more FPS", it's about FPS spikes.

You want pure fact? How about you look at the 960's FPS spikes in Tom's latest 1060 review

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/nvidia-geforce-gtx-1060-pascal,4679.html

Adding more bandwidth may not improve FPS by a large amount but it will give the end user a much smoother experience.

 

[renz496]

so did tomshardware ever said that the spike affecting gameplay?